WHY ARE BRETT BARNES AND MACAULAY CULKIN REFERENCED IN LEAVING NEVERLAND?
Oct 23, 2025
When Leaving Neverland was released in March 2019, it drew widespread condemnation from Jackson’s defenders, with almost every aspect of the documentary coming under fire.
Unsurprisingly, the brief inclusion of Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin drew attention even before the official release. Many fans—and the Jackson Estate—were seemingly outraged that director Dan Reed had chosen to feature them, particularly given that both had consistently denied any misconduct by Jackson, both during childhood and as adults. According to the Estate and others, their appearance via archive footage implied that, alongside Robson and Safechuck, they too were being portrayed as victims.
For example, in its “Petition to Compel Arbitration” against HBO’s parent company, WarnerMedia, the Jackson Estate stated:
In the Estate’s so‑called rebuttal—attributed to an anonymous Mark Hostetler and given the petulant title “Lies of Leaving Neverland”, which appeared on YouTube on 14 August 2019—the video, at around 24:40, also claims that the documentary strongly implies both Barnes and Culkin were sexµally abused, while criticising Dan Reed for not giving them the opportunity to respond to his “smears”.
A legal letter, purportedly written by Brett Barnes’ lawyer, was also sent to Richard Plepler, then CEO of HBO, on 26 February 2019.
It stated:
Brett Barnes’ lawyer
Read the full document here: leavingneverlandfacts.com
However, serious questions remain about the origin of this legal letter—specifically, whether it was issued by Brett’s personal lawyer or by one with longstanding ties to the Jackson Estate. The letter is signed by Allen B. Grodsky, a lawyer based not in Melbourne or anywhere else in Australia, where Brett resides, but in Los Angeles. Records indicate that Grodsky has represented the Jackson Estate since August 2009.
The only time Brett Barnes publicly addressed his inclusion in Leaving Neverland—along with the legal letter issued on his behalf—was during an audio-only MJCast podcast interview with Charles Thomson in 2022.
As expected, long-time Jackson apologist Charles Thomson resorted to familiar tactics, using Brett’s “unauthorised” appearance in Leaving Neverland as a foundation to attack the documentary’s credibility.
Charles Thomson
Weirdly, Charles Thomson does not criticise himself for being the lead narrator of Square One, a film that not only perpetuates degrading conspiracy theories about Jordan Chandler but also thrusts him into the spotlight as the supposed “instigator” of all the “false allegations” that followed.
During the podcast, Thomson mentions Allen Grodsky several times, referring to him as Brett’s lawyer. However, Brett provides no background context and never clarifies whether he personally chose or paid for the Los Angeles-based lawyer, nor does he explain whether it was coincidental—or not—that this lawyer also had ties to the Jackson Estate.
So, the big question is: was this legal letter predominantly orchestrated by the Jackson Estate, yet crafted to appear as though Brett Barnes alone was charging in headfirst, all guns blazing, against the makers of Leaving Neverland? It certainly seems that way.
Taking the above context into account, it is clear that the Jackson Estate—and many apologists who echo its stance—have weaponised the inclusion of both Brett Barnes and Macaulay Culkin in the documentary, using it as a basis to accuse Dan Reed of breaching basic standards of documentary filmmaking.
But that simply isn’t true.
Their inclusion was not intended to suggest they were victims, or even victims in denial. On the contrary, the documentary explicitly states that both men have denied any sexµal abuse by Jackson, underscored by an on-screen statement at the end of Part One.
Leaving Neverland is a complex documentary, and its purpose was never to tiptoe around uncomfortable facts. Their presence was not solely due to Wade and James’s accounts, but was driven largely by Jackson’s questionable behaviour and selfish actions.
These are the five main reasons:
- To show how Jackson appeared disinterested in Wade and his family during their first year in the United States—only for Wade to discover that Macaulay Culkin had become Jackson’s new “best friend”, even receiving the starring role in the Black or White music video, a part Jackson had originally promised Wade.
- To show how James was gradually phased out, feeling emotionally rejected after witnessing Jackson and Brett grow close—culminating in a painful episode at Jackson’s Century City apartment, where James was made to sleep downstairs while Brett and Jackson shared the bedroom.
- To highlight how Stephanie Safechuck observed a tight‑lipped Barnes family at Neverland, believing they had received the same warning her own family once had: not to speak to strangers who might be seeking details about Jackson.
- To show how Wade asked to join Jackson on the Dangerous tour, only to be told children were not permitted—before later seeing on television that Brett Barnes had accompanied him instead.
- To demonstrate the recurring pattern of young boys in Jackson’s life, with new companions appearing almost yearly, whom Jackson largely kept apart from one another.
All of these statements appear in the final 15 minutes of Part One.
https://files.catbox.moe/i3pjc8.mp4
Furthermore, all the footage of Brett Barnes shown in the documentary was already in the public domain. It exists only because Jackson either had him at his side while being filmed or photographed by the world’s media, or because it formed part of a carefully staged video designed to present him as the innocent “man‑child”. In McCauley’s case, the footage consisted primarily of his appearance in the Black or White music video. Both later defended Jackson as adults during his high‑profile 2005 child‑molestation trial. Culkin also gave televised interviews both before and after the proceedings, while Barnes has maintained a Twitter account devoted exclusively to Jackson since 2010.
For these reasons, any suggestion that Dan Reed directed undue media attention towards them is unfounded. The reality is that any child who spent significant one-to-one time with Jackson and has since reached adulthood will inevitably have been affected—both by the allegations and, more profoundly, by Jackson’s own actions, whether criminal or not.
In conclusion, despite protests from the Jackson Estate and Michael Jackson’s apologists, the documentary Leaving Neverland neither claimed nor implied that Brett Barnes or Macaulay Culkin were also victims of Jackson. Like any serious documentary—not some fan-made fluff—its aim was to present the facts in full.
Wade and James’s story is complex, and as with any complex narrative, other individuals inevitably appear. The brief inclusion of Brett and Macaulay serves to illustrate how their paths intersected with Wade and James, and how Wade and James themselves often experienced jealousy, neglect, and despair when they were sidelined and replaced. These emotions are not documented arbitrarily, but as a direct consequence of Jackson’s own selfish behaviour.
The criticism that Dan Reed failed to contact Brett and Macaulay to offer them the opportunity to respond to supposed “insinuations” or “smears” is laughable. Not only did Reed provide sufficient context in the documentary—through their denials and archive footage documenting the events in question—but those making such accusations are guilty of the very behaviour they condemn.
Moreover, had Dan Reed chosen to present only Wade and James’s story, omitting mention of other boys who were around at the time, he would still have faced criticism. Apologists would have immediately claimed, “But this boy or that boy was there, and they flatly deny Jackson did anything sexµal to them—which Dan conveniently chose not to mention.” In other words, Dan can’t win either way.
Posted Jan 14, 2026, 2:23 AM UTC